Morality Question

[Arthur Dietrich]

Ok...I've read a lot of "You can't have morality unless you're a Christian/follow the Bible" posts lately. A lot of them focusing on the idea that Atheists must lack morality because they don't follow the Bible.

I have a question for those of you who believe this (or anyone who wishes to comment, of course ^^)

If the Bible said nothing about murder or stealing (or any other sin, for that matter), do you think you would willingly commit sins? Keeping in mind you still have feelings/a conscious.

 

[bulldog86]

It's not so much that atheists cannot have morality... rather, it's that the morality is a farce. It's pointless.

You bring up a good point though. We all have a conscience that tells us, "Don't do it!!" I'm curious in regards to how an atheistic process could possibly bring about that conscience... but the point isn't that only Christians have morals. Rather, it's that everyone has morals because of God. I believe our Creator instilled that conscience into people. Personal opinion....

 

[tcampen]

It's not so much that atheists cannot have morality... rather, it's that the morality is a farce. It's pointless.

Why? Is it a farce because you cannot comprehend a legitimate source for morality beyond your own religious beliefs? Which is better...a morality system for everyone based on the narrow religious faith of a few, or a morality system based on reason that transcends individual religious whims and is relevant to all people?

Looking at morality from a sociological point of view, there are reason why some things are right and others are wrong. We can identify a rationale behind the rule, and therefore it makes sense. We can also take somewhat of a pragmatic look and go with what works, while rejecting that which does not. There are other innate concepts of morality found in most all people, accross cultures. Finally, we also rely on certain fundamental rights reserved for both the individual and society as a whole.

Some, perhaps you, prefer a system of morality based exclusively on your concept and interpretation of God. The problem in a free and diverse society, is that most people are bound NOT to agree with your religious views. Therefore, your system of morality could only be used if employed by force. Simply put, proclaiming a morality solely based on a particular interpretation of God's will is necessarily incompatable with a free society.

But then again, maybe some people don't want a free society.

 

[SqueezetheShaman]

Ok...I've read a lot of "You can't have morality unless you're a Christian/follow the Bible" posts lately. A lot of them focusing on the idea that Atheists must lack morality because they don't follow the Bible.

I have a question for those of you who believe this (or anyone who wishes to comment, of course ^^)

If the Bible said nothing about murder or stealing (or any other sin, for that matter), do you think you would willingly commit sins? Keeping in mind you still have feelings/a conscious.

Personally, I am amazed at people who admit to needing the Bible to tell them what is wrong and what is right. I would be ashamed to admit that. Proves to myself the theory that many religions are needed...to fulfill the need of many...without them, there are many who arent evolved enough to make the right decision without being told what that decision should be.

 

[David Gould]

To answer the question about how an atheist worldview can explain morality, there are a few different positions on this among evoutionary scientists.

The minority, to which scientist Howard Bloom belongs, believe that group selection plays a part in evolution so that learning is passed on through the generations. In other words, if one group of animals has a culture of cooperation and another does not, then the group that cooprates is likely to have more offspring and pass on such a culture to them. This explains the altruistic behaviour that is commonly observed in many species, all the way down to bacteria.


However, scientists like Richard Dawkins are sceptical that group selection plays any part in the evolutionary process. Their argument is that the "selfish gene" is what is passed on and which seeks survival. Every animal is merely a survival engine for its genes.

However, selfishness at the level of the gene can translate to altruism at the level of the individual which carries it IF such altruism is likely to lead to the survival of the gene. This is why, Dawkins argues, that animals are far more likely to protect close family members - they carry their genes and it is the gene line that selfishly seeks to survive, not the human that carries it.

From this perspective, it is also possible that some altruism at least is an emergent property - in other words, it does not arise directly from any particular genetic advantage but is the pattern that unpredictable pattern that emerges out of them.

 

[bulldog86]

Few things... WHY are there fundamental rights? If I say killing you is fine, what's to say that it ISN'T moral? You? Well, I disagree. Why should your opinion be any better than mine? Or for that matter, why should the opinion of the majority matter? The majority could very well be wrong. There is no base for "fundamental rights." There are no fundamental rights because the only thing making them "fundamental" is everybody agreeing on it. If the majority changes its mind, then those rights disappear.

Look, I'm not trying to attack you or your belief system. There is just no basis for TRUE morality with atheism.

HOWEVER.

The idea of "the good of al"l has merit. I don't find it to be morality, but, rather, selfishness channeled into good, "civilized" behavior. In other words, if I kill you, your brothers might want to kill me. Then my family will try to kill your family, society will become chaos, and everybody's life becomes much less pleasant. In other words, it makes no sense to kill because it just creates overall chaos that will hurt me and my family and pretty much everyone in the process. That makes sense. Thus, law is created. I won't steal your stuff, so don't steal mine. And let's make someone make sure that we all stay civilized.

But I wouldn't call that morality... In my book, morality is doing what is RIGHT because it is RIGHT. And there can be no right and wrong without a solid foundation for right and wrong. In other words, right and wrong are entirely relative. What's right today could be wrong tomorrow, because who's to say that right is right and wrong is wrong?

 

[Jet Black]

Look, I'm not trying to attack you or your belief system. There is just no basis for TRUE morality with atheism.

The basis for morality in atheism is intelligence and reasonable thought - which is precisely the same as the basis for the christian morality. however christians say that the intellinge and reasonable thought was God's doing and Atheists believe that it is Human doing.

 

[bulldog86]

Actually, though most of Christainity's moral points can be found through intelligence and reasonable thought, the basis for morality in Christianity IS Scripture.

My main point is, "What happens when people stop thinking intelligently? What happens when the majority decides that torture is a perfectly moral way to deal with mental retardation?" If there's no solid, unshakeable basis to contradict that majority, then the majority rules....

 

[Volos]

Originally Posted By: bulldog86
Few things... WHY are there fundamental rights? If I say killing you is fine, what's to say that it ISN'T moral? You? Well, I disagree. Why should your opinion be any better than mine? Or for that matter, why should the opinion of the majority matter? The majority could very well be wrong. There is no base for "fundamental rights." There are no fundamental rights because the only thing making them "fundamental" is everybody agreeing on it. If the majority changes its mind, then those rights disappear.

Look, I'm not trying to attack you or your belief system. There is just no basis for TRUE morality with atheism.

HOWEVER.

The idea of "the good of al"l has merit. I don't find it to be morality, but, rather, selfishness channeled into good, "civilized" behavior. In other words, if I kill you, your brothers might want to kill me. Then my family will try to kill your family, society will become chaos, and everybody's life becomes much less pleasant. In other words, it makes no sense to kill because it just creates overall chaos that will hurt me and my family and pretty much everyone in the process. That makes sense. Thus, law is created. I won't steal your stuff, so don't steal mine. And let's make someone make sure that we all stay civilized.

But I wouldn't call that morality... In my book, morality is doing what is RIGHT because it is RIGHT. And there can be no right and wrong without a solid foundation for right and wrong. In other words, right and wrong are entirely relative. What's right today could be wrong tomorrow, because who's to say that right is right and wrong is wrong?

You have made the assumption that ethics must either be authoritarian in nature or be relativistic in nature. In reality there are many ethical systems which exist between these two extremes.

 

[tcampen]

Few things... WHY are there fundamental rights? If I say killing you is fine, what's to say that it ISN'T moral? You? Well, I disagree. Why should your opinion be any better than mine? Or for that matter, why should the opinion of the majority matter? The majority could very well be wrong. There is no base for "fundamental rights." There are no fundamental rights because the only thing making them "fundamental" is everybody agreeing on it. If the majority changes its mind, then those rights disappear.

In America, fundamental rights are listed in the constitution and its 27 Amendments. At one time, women were not allowed to vote. This was a fundamental right NOT extended to them. But then came along a constitutional amendment through the lawful process, conferring onto women the right to vote, thereby codifying this right. Now, we do have a chicken/egg dilemma here. Did women already have a fundamental right to vote even before the amendment, or did the amendment make it a fundamental right? Either way you decide, the LAW came into being via the people and a representative government, by not just a majority, but a supermajority. It is NOT just a whim or fanciful decision to codify such rights. It is extremely difficult to do. People once had a right to own slaves, and that "right" was taken away.

You are correct that the people could be wrong, and sometimes are (i.e. allowing slavery, or denying women the vote). But what is the alternative? If you say God's morality should be the sole source and authority for establishing right from wrong, fundamental rights, and our civil laws, how do you avoid being just as wrong there? Which God? Which interpretation of that God? Which scriptures should we refer to, and which translations of the scriptures? There are over 1,200 Christian denominations in America alone, and countless independent churches - all with different interpretations of God. Which one should we Choose as having the best insight into God's will? Or is Christianity the right religion at all? Only one can be the most right, so which is it?

And most of all, you have not addressed how we can have a free society if one, very particular religious interpretation is used at the exclusion of all others.

What I propose is NOT an athiestic form of morality, but a secular form. They are not necessarly the same, and one should not just assume any basis for deciding right from wrong that does not include their particular concept of god is therefore based on Atheism. It's based on reason.

Look, I'm not trying to attack you or your belief system. There is just no basis for TRUE morality with atheism.

HOWEVER.

The idea of "the good of al"l has merit. I don't find it to be morality, but, rather, selfishness channeled into good, "civilized" behavior. In other words, if I kill you, your brothers might want to kill me. Then my family will try to kill your family, society will become chaos, and everybody's life becomes much less pleasant. In other words, it makes no sense to kill because it just creates overall chaos that will hurt me and my family and pretty much everyone in the process. That makes sense. Thus, law is created. I won't steal your stuff, so don't steal mine. And let's make someone make sure that we all stay civilized.

But I wouldn't call that morality... In my book, morality is doing what is RIGHT because it is RIGHT. And there can be no right and wrong without a solid foundation for right and wrong. In other words, right and wrong are entirely relative. What's right today could be wrong tomorrow, because who's to say that right is right and wrong is wrong?

75 years ago, bible believing people in the south routinely lynched african americans for racially motivated reasons. It was consider right by them. Today we've changed, so what's so bad about that?

You assert that the secular basis for not killing or stealing can account for creating laws, but is inherently shakey. However, I am not away of a society in all of history that suddenly switched over and thought stealing was perfectly acceptable. Same with killing other people for no reason or justification. (Although history is full of societies using false justifications for killing others, including Christians.)

The Christian bible nowhere recognizes or endorses the concept of personal liberty such as is part of the American government. In fact, it recognizes slavery, submitting to the civil law, and generally not worrying about such things because it'll all be irrelevant in the next life. Does that mean you don't see personal liberty as a fundamental right? That is is wrong to limit or oppress one's potential? Shouldn't a child be able to grow up and pursue whatever moral life they choose?

You can shout all day how our society's morality should be based soley on your religious interpretations, but you have failed to establish how that would work, or where it has ever been successful in the history of the world.

 

[bulldog86]

In America, fundamental rights are listed in the constitution and its 27 Amendments. At one time, women were not allowed to vote. This was a fundamental right NOT extended to them. But then came along a constitutional amendment through the lawful process, conferring onto women the right to vote, thereby codifying this right. Now, we do have a chicken/egg dilemma here. Did women already have a fundamental right to vote even before the amendment, or did the amendment make it a fundamental right? Either way you decide, the LAW came into being via the people and a representative government, by not just a majority, but a supermajority. It is NOT just a whim or fanciful decision to codify such rights. It is extremely difficult to do. People once had a right to own slaves, and that "right" was taken away.

According to the Constitution, we are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights." Now I'm not saying that "Creator" means the "Christian" God, but I AM saying that our founding fathers understood that if they said that people were "endowed by this government" with the rights... problems could ensue. If the only entity giving rights is the government of man, then the government of man can take away those rights just as easily. However, if they attributed the gift of those rights to God, then, in theory, no government can take them away.

You are correct that the people could be wrong, and sometimes are (i.e. allowing slavery, or denying women the vote). But what is the alternative? If you say God's morality should be the sole source and authority for establishing right from wrong, fundamental rights, and our civil laws, how do you avoid being just as wrong there? Which God? Which interpretation of that God? Which scriptures should we refer to, and which translations of the scriptures? There are over 1,200 Christian denominations in America alone, and countless independent churches - all with different interpretations of God. Which one should we Choose as having the best insight into God's will? Or is Christianity the right religion at all? Only one can be the most right, so which is it?

When did I ever say that our law should be based on Biblical morality? I NEVER brought government into the picture. YOU did. All I am saying is that my morals are based on a solid foundation. This isn't a holier than thou thing. I don't know; maybe I'm coming across that way. I don't mean to. I just happen to be more happy with a solid, unshakeable moral code. Slavery, as we know it today (BIBLICAL slavery is a whole 'nother can o' worms...) will ALWAYS be wrong, Biblically. Rape will ALWAYS be wrong, Biblically. Murder will ALWAYS be wrong, Biblically. etc. etc.

And most of all, you have not addressed how we can have a free society if one, very particular religious interpretation is used at the exclusion of all others.

Never said we should do that....

What I propose is NOT an athiestic form of morality, but a secular form. They are not necessarly the same, and one should not just assume any basis for deciding right from wrong that does not include their particular concept of god is therefore based on Atheism. It's based on reason.

I think the founding fathers were very intelligent. I would wager that some of the people who approved the Constitution were atheists. I would wager that a handful did not believe for a second that a "Creator" actually existed. But that one sentence added a sense of permanence that would be absent otherwise. Now, I'm NOT saying to compromise your beliefs or to lie or be deceitful. I just think it's smart. In theory, a secular government morality seems the most fair. But I am very wary of saying the government gives morals... the government giveth, the government taketh away. I'm not looking forward to a 1984-like society....

You assert that the secular basis for not killing or stealing can account for creating laws, but is inherently shakey. However, I am not away of a society in all of history that suddenly switched over and thought stealing was perfectly acceptable. Same with killing other people for no reason or justification. (Although history is full of societies using false justifications for killing others, including Christians.)

I didn't assert anything. I just said that the theory makes some sense (meaning, other atheists have said that that is why we have consistent morals throughout history). You haven't seen a historical account of a society degrading morally? Babylonians... started out being generous to conquered nations but gradually grew more hostile and became somewhat vicious before being conquered...

The Christian bible nowhere recognizes or endorses the concept of personal liberty such as is part of the American government. In fact, it recognizes slavery, submitting to the civil law, and generally not worrying about such things because it'll all be irrelevant in the next life. Does that mean you don't see personal liberty as a fundamental right? That is is wrong to limit or oppress one's potential? Shouldn't a child be able to grow up and pursue whatever moral life they choose?

Slavery... the problem with your argument is that Biblical slavery is more akin to servitude. Most "slavery" in Scripture was for a period of maybe seven years for the repayment of a large family debt. In other words, Bob takes his men and saves Joe's life from Frank's soldiers. Joe's son, Joe Jr. is then sent to Bob to work for seven years to repay the debt. Yes, submit to civil law, not because it doesn't matter, but because God puts authority in place. HOWEVER. Once a government or authority violates the law of God, then they forfeit that authority and the order to follow that authority is negated. A child is free to make his own choices when he is free form his parents and is his own person. But is entirely under the authority of his parents until then (unless, again, they violate God's law).

You can shout all day how our society's morality should be based soley on your religious interpretations, but you have failed to establish how that would work, or where it has ever been successful in the history of the world.

That's funny... I don't seem to ever recall saying that we should base our government entirely on "my relgious interpretations." Weird. So is it that I just forgot or that you made a large assumption about what I was saying? (My vote goes to option two ).

Sucessful in the world... nation of Israel. Became a world power under a God-led monarchy... massively wealthy and hugely powerful militarily. Started disobeying God, went massively downhill, split in two... got conquered. I can't recall it ever being TRIED other than that...

 

[tcampen]

According to the Constitution, we are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights." Now I'm not saying that "Creator" means the "Christian" God, but I AM saying that our founding fathers understood that if they said that people were "endowed by this government" with the rights... problems could ensue. If the only entity giving rights is the government of man, then the government of man can take away those rights just as easily. However, if they attributed the gift of those rights to God, then, in theory, no government can take them away.

Sorry, but the Constitution most certainly does NOT say ""endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights." That is found in the Declaration of Independence written by a certain Thomas Jefferson, who was NOT a Christian (by today's standards), nor were John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and probably George Washington. They were all deists, believing in a single god who created the universe with natural laws, then left it alone. Jefferson originally wrote that quote to say among those rights were "life, liberty, and property," by that last part got revised by the other founders to be "the pursuit of happiness."

However, you are correct in that the founders saw that we had unalienable rights that transcended civil law. But that is not to say they all based the source of those rights on the same supernatural being by any stretch, nor did they believe those rights were absolute. (i.e. clearly one convicted of a crime could loose their right to liberty.)

When did I ever say that our law should be based on Biblical morality? I NEVER brought government into the picture. YOU did. All I am saying is that my morals are based on a solid foundation. This isn't a holier than thou thing. I don't know; maybe I'm coming across that way. I don't mean to. I just happen to be more happy with a solid, unshakeable moral code.

Fine. Then cut to the chase and tell us WHERE CAN WE FIND THIS "SOLID, UNSHAKEABLE MORAL CODE?" Stop beating around the bush, and get specific.

These inalieable rights were NOT found in the bible, but in reason. They were believed to be self evident, natural laws, although there was certainly debate as to what they were. Don't think for a minute everyone agreed on which rights were unalienable, nor should you believe we would all agree today.

I didn't assert anything. I just said that the theory makes some sense (meaning, other atheists have said that that is why we have consistent morals throughout history). You haven't seen a historical account of a society degrading morally? Babylonians... started out being generous to conquered nations but gradually grew more hostile and became somewhat vicious before being conquered...

Got anything more recent than a 3000 year old biblical story? Generous to conquered nations? Isn't the conquering thing a problem to begin with? Would it be morrally acceptable for China to "conquer" America, just so long as they were generous invaders? And I'm not really even sure were this is going anyway. What was the point?

Besides, the consistency of morality throughout time, places and cultures can be attributed to any number of factors, both supernatural and natural. I don't see how you can point to a specific supernatural source for this without basing it on a particular religious belief. But then again, perhaps you're not.

Slavery... the problem with your argument is that Biblical slavery is more akin to servitude. Most "slavery" in Scripture was for a period of maybe seven years for the repayment of a large family debt. In other words, Bob takes his men and saves Joe's life from Frank's soldiers. Joe's son, Joe Jr. is then sent to Bob to work for seven years to repay the debt. Yes, submit to civil law, not because it doesn't matter, but because God puts authority in place. HOWEVER. Once a government or authority violates the law of God, then they forfeit that authority and the order to follow that authority is negated. A child is free to make his own choices when he is free form his parents and is his own person. But is entirely under the authority of his parents until then (unless, again, they violate God's law).

The 7 year rule only applied to male, Isrealite slaves. If a master gave the slave a wife, and the wife bore daughters, for example, the master could keep the wife and daughters as slaves forever. Non Jews could certainly be slaves for life. (see Deuteronomy 15:12-18; Exodus 21:7; Leviticus 25:44-46 That is slavery, my friend, NOT servitude, so I'm missing your point.

How does "God put authority in place" with a democratic election? Does god force the right people in the right states to vote a certain way to ensure a certain outcome." Did god intend for Bush to become president, but not get the most votes? This is really shaky ground.

That's funny... I don't seem to ever recall saying that we should base our government entirely on "my relgious interpretations." Weird. So is it that I just forgot or that you made a large assumption about what I was saying? (My vote goes to option two ).

Ok, then I suppose you think our source should be Allah, right? or Vishnu? Who, then?

Sucessful in the world... nation of Israel. Became a world power under a God-led monarchy... massively wealthy and hugely powerful militarily. Started disobeying God, went massively downhill, split in two... got conquered. I can't recall it ever being TRIED other than that...

So we should aspire to a monarchy? Based on what? Oh yes, a very specific God. Great nation to be in, unless you were one of those slaves, of course. And how were non-Jews treated? With respect and dignity? I'm not sure I follow you.

Let's look at another nation...Rome. Totally pagan, became "massively wealthy and hugely powerful militarily" to a degree that dwarfed Isreal in its heyday. Reigned for 400 years, Constantine turned the Rome Christain, and the Empire began its decline within 50 years. Shouldn't the Roman Empire have become even greater once converting to Christianity using your reasoning? Hmmmmmmmmm.

 

[God v2.03 build 6]

Is it really so far fetched to think that just maybe there really is no right and wrong? That those terms depend completely on an individuals perception? Doesn't seem too far off to me. A general moral code telling people what is right and wrong would not be hard thing to spread, once it catches on. That doesn't mean certain things really are right and certain things really are wrong. That is simply what many would have come to believe. That is their perception. Such things could evolve for many reasons, survival being a foremost contender I'm sure.

 

[tcampen]

Is it really so far fetched to think that just maybe there really is no right and wrong? That those terms depend completely on an individuals perception? Doesn't seem too far off to me. A general moral code telling people what is right and wrong would not be hard thing to spread, once it catches on. That doesn't mean certain things really are right and certain things really are wrong. That is simply what many would have come to believe. That is their perception. Such things could evolve for many reasons, survival being a foremost contender I'm sure.

The thing I find so interesting is that those who promote the concept of absolute right and wrong invariably also insist they know what that is. The problem results when all these people professing an absolute moral code absolutely fail to agree on what it is while all claiming the exact same source for that moral code. Truely fascinating.

 

[KatebTheChaotic]

The thing I find so interesting is that those who promote the concept of absolute right and wrong invariably also insist they know what that is. The problem results when all these people professing an absolute moral code absolutely fail to agree on what it is while all claiming the exact same source for that moral code. Truely fascinating.

perception is, in essence, personal reality. It is hard to tear people away from theirs, and even harder to find a commonality between perceptions among a large sample population.

 

[revolutio]

Here is how I developed the morals I have as an agnostic:

First the only thing we have to live for is happiness and pleasure. Everything else is just a way at those two.

We acknowledge that if no one works together then a great many people will be denied this happiness at the expense of the few. So rules must me set to ensure the greatest average happiness for the populace is attained. These rules are morals.

*The preceding was entirely a matter of my own opinion.

 

[foolsparade]

Yes Arthur, if there were no laws {being religious or civil} that stated we are not allowed to kill or commit violence, would we all be running around doing just that? Of course not. I personaly find the average Christian, at least in this forum to be less "moral" than I.

 

[KatebTheChaotic]

Here is how I developed the morals I have as an agnostic:

First the only thing we have to live for is happiness and pleasure. Everything else is just a way at those two.

We acknowledge that if no one works together then a great many people will be denied this happiness at the expense of the few. So rules must me set to ensure the greatest average happiness for the populace is attained. These rules are morals.

*The preceding was entirely a matter of my own opinion.

as an atheist I base my morals on a simple judicial code of ethics...

If my actions infringe on another individuals right to choose their destiny in any way concievable, I am in the wrong.

 

[bulldog86]

But that is not to say they all based the source of those rights on the same supernatural being by any stretch, nor did they believe those rights were absolute.

I believe I already stated the first part clearly... They are absolute... unless they choose to forfeit those rights...

Fine. Then cut to the chase and tell us WHERE CAN WE FIND THIS "SOLID, UNSHAKEABLE MORAL CODE?" Stop beating around the bush, and get specific.

I base my morality on Scripture. I NEVER said that the government should base the law entirely on Scripture...

Got anything more recent than a 3000 year old biblical story? Generous to conquered nations? Isn't the conquering thing a problem to begin with?

Name ONE nation EVER that did not conquer... My point was that they started out generous, giving their conquered peoples the right to worship their own gods and generally have a fairly lax life... And then degraded. You said name a society. I did.

The 7 year rule only applied to male, Isrealite slaves. If a master gave the slave a wife, and the wife bore daughters, for example, the master could keep the wife and daughters as slaves forever. Non Jews could certainly be slaves for life. (see Deuteronomy 15:12-18; Exodus 21:7; Leviticus 25:44-46 That is slavery, my friend, NOT servitude, so I'm missing your point.

Deut. 15:12-18 states exactly what I said. They'll be freed in the seventh year and were to be "furnish[ed] ... liberally" (NASB, v14). And it DOES apply to women... see the end of v17 "And also you shall do likewise to your maidservant."

Read the Exodus verse in context. It basically says, "You can sell men to wherever you wish, but you can't sell women to a foreign country. If you don't like her, she goes free, but you can't sell her..."

Exodus 21:7-8 (NASB) "'And if a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her."

How does "God put authority in place" with a democratic election? Does god force the right people in the right states to vote a certain way to ensure a certain outcome." Did god intend for Bush to become president, but not get the most votes? This is really shaky ground.

My fault. The more proper phrase is that no authority is in place without the permission of God.

Ok, then I suppose you think our source should be Allah, right? or Vishnu? Who, then?

My morality is based on God. Man's law is secular and should stay as such... though I DO fear what may happen when man decides to change his laws...

So we should aspire to a monarchy?

Yep, that's exactly what I said. You simply asked for an example and I GAVE you one. Don't jump all over me for giving you your requested example.

Let's look at another nation...Rome. Totally pagan, became "massively wealthy and hugely powerful militarily" to a degree that dwarfed Isreal in its heyday. Reigned for 400 years, Constantine turned the Rome Christain, and the Empire began its decline within 50 years. Shouldn't the Roman Empire have become even greater once converting to Christianity using your reasoning?

Good point, but Empire never was Christian. Constantine was, but he just made the "official" religion Christianity. You think that the majority of the people in the empire genuinely believed Christianity? Think again... The Emperor wants Christians... "Yes, sire, Jesus is my Savior... and thanks for the promotion."

 

[bulldog86]

Is it really so far fetched to think that just maybe there really is no right and wrong?

Well, if you ever have a daughter who gets raped, come here and tell me that the rapist didn't really do anything "wrong," per say...